Designing Better Accountability Mechanisms for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

8/19/2019 Designing Better Accountability Mechanisms for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

1/31 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.O

Designing Better AccountabilityMechanisms for the 2030 Agenda

for Sustainable DevelopmentBy Molly Elgin-Cossart and Rahul Chandran


2/31

Designing BetterAccountability Mechanismsfor the 2030 Agenda forSustainable Development

By Molly Elgin-Cossart and Rahul Chandran


3/31

1 Introduction and summary

4 Background

6 Identifying lessons from existing accountability mechan

6 Global mechanisms

9 Regional mechanisms

13 Influencing SDG implementation through accountabilit

mechanisms

13 Inspiration: collective action, champions, and the power of reputation

14 Learning deepening understanding, driving adaptation, and delivering pol

reforms

16 Findings

18 The HLPF

19 Recommendations

19 Set transitional objectives for HLPF 2016

20 Focus HLPF’s 2017-2020 on providing the building blocks for success

21 Devolve as much as possible

22 Be unafraid to be creative

23 Conclusion

26 Endnotes

Contents


4/31

1 Center for American Progress | Designing Better Accountability Mechanisms for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develo

Introduction and summary

U.N. member saes have said ha he 2030 Agenda or Susainable

Developmenhe hisoric agreemen o end povery and promoe shared eco-

nomic prosperiy, social developmen, and environmenal proecionwill mos

effecively be achieved wih he aid o well-designed accounabiliy mechanisms

and “a robus, volunary, effecive, paricipaory, ransparen and inegraed ollow-

up and review ramework … operaing a he naional, regional and global levels.”1

Using accounabiliy mechanisms o suppor he implemenaion o heSusainable Developmen Goals, or SDGs, will require serious and sraegic

hinking. Accounabiliy or he SDGs will and should be led by local and naional

mechanisms. Tese mechanisms will be driven by ciizens, governmens, and heir

own specific relaionships. Regional and global accounabiliy mechanisms can,

however, ac as so-called orce mulipliers or such naional iniiaives and will

help saes and ciies achieve he 2030 agenda.

o do so, accounabiliy mechanisms and heir advocaes mus appreciae ha he

greaes influence will be ound in supporive and appreciaive mechanisms. Tere

is no room or puniive mechanisms a he global or regional levels. Te more

ha global and regional ools can enhance and complemen local and naional

accounabiliy efforsby enabling domesic legislaive processes or ciizen

engagemenhe greaer he poenial effec.

Trough an examinaion o five exising accounabiliy mechanismshe

Annual Miniserial Review, or AMR; he Developmen Cooperaion Forum,

or DCF; he Inernaional Moneary Fund, or IMF, Aricle IV consulaions;

he Organisaion or Economic Co-operaion and Developmen, or OECD,

peer reviews; and he Arican Peer Review Mechanism, or APRMhis reporidenifies wo primary pahways or developing accounabiliy mechanisms o

influence SDG implemenaion:


5/31


• Harnessing the power of inspiration. Accounabiliy ools should ideniy

championscounries and ciies ha demonsrae significan progress oward

meeing or have achieved individual goals and argesand aciliae he shar-

ing o hese success sories; suppor collecive acion; and use he posiive power

o repuaion. Using poliical engagemen or publiciy orms a valuable par o

how accounabiliy can inspire beter implemenaion.

• Evidenced-based learning. Mechanisms should be explicily geared o deepen

an undersanding o wha works and wha does no; help drive adapaion;

and deliver policy reorms. High-qualiy analysis based on robus sandards

can help decision makers and reorm leaders o beter undersand possible

pahways o success.

In addiion, he auhors find six general characerisics ha accounabiliy mecha-

nisms should possess in order o be effecive. Tese could provide a useul yard-

sick or measuring proposals ha emerge in he uure:

• Clear objectives. Mechanisms should speciy wha hey hope o achieve and how.

• Form linked to function. Te srucure o a mechanism should reflec is objec-

ives and be realisic regarding is limiaions.

• Robust incentives. Criical or building effecive SDG accounabiliy mecha-

nisms is undersanding he need or incenives boh o drive change and o

encourage subsanive paricipaion. oo many mechanisms creae oo much o

a burden or paricipans and reduce he likelihood o serious engagemen. Te

use o cos-benefi analysis could help in his effor.

• Better balance between substance and process. Real, nonsaniized engage-

men is essenial. Te use o evidence helps makes mechanisms real. Te curren

discussion needs o shif o a greaer undersanding o he need or subsance.

• Range of stakeholders. Te evidence suggess ha member saes, wihou

civil-sociey engagemen, end oward nonsubsanive engagemen. Te

inclusive process ha gave rise o he SDGs should be mirrored by inclusivemechanisms or accounabiliy.

• Use of champions to drive learning. Te evidence rom pas mechanisms sug-

gess ha he role o champions and success sories may be he mos effecive

pahway o inspire change and influence policy.


6/31


Te above lessons highligh he imporance o high-level inspiraion and conin-

ued learning in order o deliver effecive policy reorms. In ligh o such lessons,

we recommend ha member saes ake he ollowing our seps:

1. Set transitional objectives for the 2016 High-Level Political Forum, or HLPF.

Tis should include ideniying explici objecives or uure HLPFs; drivinginvesmen aimed a building robus mechanisms; and ensuring ha uure

HLPFs remain flexible. Member saes should also ariculae heir sraegic

expecaions or he Unied Naions.

2. Focus HLPFs 2017–2020 on providing the building blocks for future success.

Tis can be achieved by leveraging he principles o robus incenives; using

evidence and being inclusive; seeking o ideniy champions; delivering genu-

ine learning ha shapes policy; and mainaining poliical atenion, paricularly

hrough a successul 2019 HLPF.

3. Devolve as much as possible. Member saes should respec he principle o

subsidiariy and ensure ha responsibiliies wihin accounabiliy mechanisms

are as close as possible o he level o he decisions ha hey seek o influence.

Essenially, his means i any quesion or discussion could happen a a local,

regional, subnaional, or naional level, i should.

4. Be unafraid to be creative. Te HLPF offers an opporuniy o use esed

mechanisms such as prizes. For insances, member saes could hold a compei-

ion or creaive suggesions, wih he prize being atendance a he 2019 HLPF.

Tere should also be a move o experimen wih youh involvemen or perhaps

he esablishmen o a commission on lessons o be learned, which would

model bold approaches used by saes and ciies.


7/31


Background

On Sepember 25, 2015, leaders represening 193 counries gahered a he

Unied Naions and commited o pu he world on a pah oward susain-

able and inclusive economic growh hrough he 2030 Agenda or Susainable

Developmen. Tis agenda is ariculaed hrough a se o 17 SDGs linked o 169

argesa significan increase on he eigh goals and 21 arges o he Millennium

Developmen Goals, or MDGs. Given he breadh and complexiy o he SDGs, i

will be crucial o have mechanisms o accounabiliy in place ha suppor member

saes in he successul implemenaion o he goals.

Tis repor hereore seeks o ideniy lessons gahered rom exising accoun-

abiliy processes, invesigaing heir implicaions, and presening opions or

building accounabiliy mechanisms ha can beter suppor he 2030 Agenda or

Susainable Developmen. Tis repor ocuses on he global and regional levels,

wih paricular atenion paid o he HLPF, which is he only mechanism ha cur-

renly exiss o review SDG progress.

Tere is consensus ha accounabiliy in he 2030 agenda should be led by local

and naional mechanisms. Te naure o naional accounabiliy mechanisms will

vary widely and will be driven by ciizens, governmens, and heir own specific

relaionships.2 Regional and global accounabiliy mechanisms can, however, ac

as so-called orce mulipliers or such naional iniiaives and play an essenial

albei supporingrole in implemening he 2030 agenda.

For cenuries, poliical scieniss have been concerned wih accounabiliy, which

we define here as a means or holding hose wih he power o make decisions o

accoun when hey ac on behal o a larger group.3 Member saes, reerring o he

2030 agenda, have noed i will be achieved hrough “a robus, volunary, effec-ive, paricipaory, ransparen and inegraed ollow-up and review ramework …

operaing a he naional, regional and global levels.”4


8/31


Research on how o effecively suppor volunary inernaional agreemens

suggess ha domesic poliics are a he ronline o accounabiliy and here-

ore mus be he basis o effecive mechanisms a he regional and global levels.5

Inernaional agreemens such as he SDGs may seem weak because o heir

lack o hard enorcemen mechanisms. However, inernaional agreemens ha

empower domesic groups o mobilize or simulae domesic legislaive or judicialprocesses increase he likelihood o compliance. In mos cases, as noed by Dr.

Beh Simmons, a proessor a Harvard, “he real poliics o change is likely o

occur a he domesic level,”6 which is why he primary locus o accounabiliy or

he SDGs should also be localspecifically, beween ciizens and saes.

Criical o any discussion o such mechanisms is he recogniion ha here is

essenially no room or puniive regimes o global or regional accounabiliy

or he SDGs. Raher, posiive reinorcemen, hrough horizonal or social sof

oolssuch as peer review processeswill orm he core o such mechanisms.

Creaing incenives will be necessary in order o ensure ha hese are effecive.Furhermore, he more ha global and regional ools can enhance and comple-

men local and naional accounabiliy efforsby enabling domesic legislaive

processes or ciizen engagemenhe greaer effec hey migh have.


9/31


Identifying lessons from existing

accountability mechanisms

Tis secion examines selec accounabiliy mechanisms a he global and regional

levels in order o ideniy heir srenghs and weaknesses.7 Tese lessons underpin

he recommendaions presened in he final secion o his repor.

Global mechanisms

A he global level, he iniial srucure o accounabiliy or he MDGs consisedo ollow-up and review under he auspices o he U.N. Economic and Social

Council’s, or ECOSOC, Commission on Susainable Developmen, or CSD.

Laer, he 2005 World Summi creaed he Annual Miniserial Review 8 and

Developmen Cooperaion Forum.9 In addiion o he AMR and he DCF, he

IMF’s Aricle IV consulaions process is also examined.

The Annual Ministerial Review

Te AMR was mandaed o conduc a miniserial-level review o progress oward

he MDGs and o evaluae and review implemenaion o he U.N. Developmen

Agenda. Approximaely 10 member saes presen heir naional progress, suc-

cesses, and challenges in rying o achieve he MDGs each year. Tese yearly

evaluaions build on consulaive counry-led regional reviews. A he global

level, he U.N. secreary-general presens a repor examining global progress on

he U.N. Developmen Agenda.

Te AMR has been described as having a highly scriped, consrained orma

ha lacks any independen review mechanism, hus prevening dialogue or anykind o so-called challenge uncion. Te AMR does no include ollow-up on he

review and is recommendaions. Moreover, he presening sae selecs he hree

saes ha will review is perormance and generally selecs hose ha are avor-

ably inclined. 10 Te AMR also observes he ECOSOC’s rules o procedure, which


10/31


do no allow nongovernmen organizaions, or NGOs, ino meeings “excep by

exclusive inviaion.”11 Finally, only developing counries presen heir progress.

While donors are expeced o be responsible or developmen cooperaion and

helping counries mee he MDGs, hese componens are discussed in he sepa-

rae biennial DCF, which was also inroduced in 2005.

When i comes o esablishing an effecive mechanism, wo key lessons emerge rom

he experience and shorcomings o he AMR, specifically, ha a mechanism should be:

• Linked to clear objectives. I was never clear wha he AMR was mean o

achieve. Was i mean o be a orum or member saes o share real success

sories? I so, why were here no suppor srucures o scale posiive sories o

oher counries? Or was i an opporuniy o explore ideas ha were no work-

ing and share cauionary ales? Tis migh have been an effecive oucome, given

he lack o ouside paricipaion, bu wha incenives were in place o encourage

such disclosure? Specificiy on wha he oucomes should be, as well as whadecisions should change and how will help ensure ha any SDG mechanisms

have a chance o achieving heir goals.

• Linked to clear incentives. Te flip side is ha he lack o incenives or serious

paricipaion reduces he likelihood o a mechanism achieving is poenial. Te

AMR does no rigger addiional resources, provide clear learning opporuni-

ies, or showcase achievemens in a way ha eiher booss repuaional effecs

or provides an incenive o openly explore challenges. As a resul, presenaions

up o 2014 ocused solely on he posiive raher han on boh successes and

challenges, which lessened he poenial or learning and made i more abou

member saes blowing heir own rumpes.12

The Development Cooperation Forum

Te DCF, a biennial high-level orum o member saes:

… reviews trends in international development cooperation, promotes greater

coherence among the development activities of different development partners

and helps to promote policy integration and to strengthen the normative and

operational link in the work of the United Nations.13


11/31


While no explicily a review procedure, a key ocus area or he DCF in recen

years has been global accounabiliy in developmen cooperaion.14 DCF mem-

bership, like ha o he AMR, is closed o nonsae acors. While is preparaory

process osensibly gives voice o a wide range o sakeholders, i largely remains

shu o meaningul inpu rom civil sociey.15

While he DCF, as a orum ha encompasses all member saes as equal mem-

bersunlike oher orums, such as he OECD Developmen Assisance

Commiteeis seen o have universal legiimacy,16 ha legiimacy is undermined

by is ineffeciveness. I does no have wide poliical buy-in, and many key develop-

men acors have shown a limied willingness o engage wih he DCF. 17 Moreover,

he DCF does no creae a plaorm or genuine eedback or engagemen abou he

limis o progress oward parnership or provide an opporuniy or learning rom

and coordinaing wih a range o acors in order o srenghen parnership.

Te experience o he DCF reinorces he lessons rom he AMRin paricular,he idea ha in order o be effecive, mechanisms mus be genuine. Mechanisms

ha allow member saes o only presen saniized versions o inormaion do no

produce engagemen or serious oucomes. I is elling ha boh he DCF and he

AMR are subsanively closed o civil sociey in his regard.

IMF Article IV consultations

Since he 1970s, he IMF has conduced surveillance o is member economies

in accordance wih Aricle IV o is Aricles o Agreemen. Tese consulaions

are mean o ensure ha counries pursue policies conducive o macroeconomic

sabiliy.18 According o he IMF, counry surveillance is carried ou hrough a

counry visi o collec economic and financial inormaion, including consul-

aions wih naional auhoriies on recen economic developmens and heir

moneary, fiscal, and relevan srucural policies. Te repor is hen submited

o IMF managemen and hen o is execuive board or discussion. Te counry

is represened a he IMF board meeing, and i he individual represening he

reviewed counry a he board meeing agrees, he ull Aricle IV consulaion

repor is released o he public.19

Te Aricle IV process is sricer han a normal peer review process. Te ermsurveillance emphasizes he IMF’s role in supervision and compliance. In wealh-

ier counries ha do no require IMF resources, Aricle IV consulaions have

less power o promoe policy change. In poorer counries, however, where IMF


12/31


resources are imporan o economic managemen and alernaives are scarce, he

consulaions are much more influenial. Te key criicism, however, is ha he

IMF as a whole is G7 dominaed and hereore represens he ineress o hese

counries raher han providing a wider and more balanced perspecive.20

Te Aricle IV consulaions demonsrae he value o high-qualiy analysis ando he link o resources. A he same ime, hey demonsrae he risks posed by

noninclusive governance o any process ha seeks o have a global reach.

Regional mechanisms

A he regional level, peer review has evolved ino a primary mechanism or coun-

ries o engage wih one anoher, as well as wih mulilaeral insiuions. Tis sec-

ion explores he peer review mechanisms o he OECD and he Arican Union.

OECD peer reviews

Peer review has been used a he OECD or more han 50 years.21 Te OECD

defines peer review as “an examinaion o one sae’s perormance or pracices in a

paricular area by oher saes.”22 Te objecive is “o help he sae under review

improve is policymaking, adop bes pracices and comply wih esablished

sandards and principles.” OECD peer review processes have evolved over ime o

include more involvemen rom civil sociey, business, and labor organizaions. 23

Analysis o he OECD peer review process suggess ha he key acors govern-

ing heir success are he echnical compeence and independence o he OECD

secrearia and examiners. In addiion, he posiion o hese reviews wihin a

wider ecosysem o policy dialogue and debae creaes room or compeing voices,

which are key in saeguarding he credibiliy o he reviews.24

Te OECD also conducs economic surveys and environmenal perormance

reviews, or EPR s, which have relevan lessons as well. Te EPR process highlighs

he need or indicaors o be boh poliically and echnically credible. Te eco-

nomic echnical communiy does no appear o have aken is effors seriously,

and high-level officials have no suppored he indicaors in public. Relaed o his,he EPR recommendaions rarely go beyond policy docrine, which undermines

heir abiliy o inorm learning or influence policy discourse in any real way.25


13/31

10 Center for American Progress | Designing Better Accountability Mechanisms for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Devel

Key lessons rom he OECD peer review mechanisms include he ollowing:

• Reviews are more successful when they include a quantitative or ranking

element. For example, he OECD Jobs Sraegywhich ranks members

based upon heir unemploymen reducion26in addiion o he OECD’s

Developmen Assisance Commitee, or DAC, peer review mechanism, have become useul analysis and advocacy ools.27 Indicaor monioring mecha-

nismsand even ranking mechanismscan spur a race o he op. Conversely,

monioring also encourages behavioral changes by hreaening repuaional

coss or poorly perorming saes and providing odder or civil-sociey groups

or domesic sakeholders.28

• Credibility is key. Indicaors and policy recommendaions, i generaed, mus be

credible o he poliical communiy; he echnical communiy; and wider civil

sociey in order o generae engagemen.

• Civil-society engagement multiplies the effect of quantitative scoring when

the scoring is reliable. When civil sociey russ he mechanism or generaing

quaniaive scoring, i increases he abiliy o hese scores o be used as an advo-

cacy ool. Tis requires reliable echnical compeence on behal o he scorers.

• High-level political engagement is essential. Where peer review ails o link o

high-level engagemen in any ormal way, and i here is no media or civil-sociey

engagemenas is largely rue o he EPRhe effec is diminished.

African Pee r Review Mechanism

Te Arican Peer Review Mechanism was creaed in 2003 by he Arican Union

as a volunary sel-monioring mechanism in order o urher share poliical and

economic norms, as well as common developmen objecives wihin he New

Parnership or Arica’s Developmen, or NEPAD.29 Paricipaion is volunary, and

he organizaion’s auhoriy is he commitee o he paricipaing heads o sae

and governmen, or PHSG, which represens he various regions wihin Arica.

Te APRM is innovaive in is link o a mechanism or access o resources: I a

counry shows demonsrable will o fix is shorcomings, i will receive any avail-able assisance. I such poliical will does no exis, paricipaing saes are sup-

posed o engage leaders in dialogue and offer echnical assisance. I his ails, he

PHSG are mean o noiy he governmen ha hey will “proceed wih appropri-

ae measures by a given dae” o creae incenives or acion.30 Afer his process,

he repor is lodged wih regional and subregional insiuions. Tus he APRM

includes, in heory, boh posiive and negaive incenives or compliance.


14/31


Te ARPM is well designeda leas on paper. Te decision-making auhoriy in

he APRM is a he highes poliical levela orum o heads o sae and govern-

men who appoin a panel o prominen poliical and academic leaders o manage

he process. Te APRM has echnical and adminisraive suppor hrough a

cenral secrearia. A counry review eam comprised o echnical expers rom a

mix o Arican counries and accompanied by a member o he panel underakeshe reviews.31 o promoe ransparency and social accounabiliy, he counry

reviews are designed o include consulaions wih NGOs, communiy organiza-

ions, and sakeholders.32 In addiion, hese reviews are supposed o be made

public and submited o relevan regional and global bodies, such as he Arican

Union, as well as o he ECOSOC.33

However, he APRM has sruggled. While paricipaing members are supposed o

conribue o unding he secrearia, ew have been able o do so. Te secrearia

remains shor-saffed and lacks he echnical knowledge necessary o complee he

reviews.34 Moreover, he secrearia is generally over-sreched given he remen-dous breadh o APRM reviews, which cover democracy, poliical governance,

corporae governance, economic governance, as well as oher areas.35

Te reviews ha emerge may hereore no be o a sufficien echnical sandard

and conain inaccurae or oudaed inormaion, which could undermine heir

credibiliy as pracical resources or policy developmen. Furhermore, he

reviews are no always clearly linked o counries’ plans o acion nor are coun-

ries required o respond o he reviews.36 Te APRM experience also highlighs

he ac ha no all civil-sociey engagemen is equal. Analyss have argued ha

NGOs and communiy groups are eiher careully seleced by governmens o

avoid overly criical acors or are given so litle inormaion abou he process ha

hey are no able o ully engage.37 As a resul, Kenyan Presiden Uhuru Kenyata

recenly lamened ha he APRM had become a mere bureaucraic exercise and

has los high-level poliical atenion and buy-in.38

Key lessons rom he APRM process include:

• Reviews must have a clear subject and a reasonable timeframe. Te breadh o

he APRM reviews made hem very difficul o conduc. Narrowing he ocusand reducing he requency o hese reviews could help bolser heir echnical

qualiy and credibiliy.39


15/31


• Inadequate resources undermine reviews and the underlying mechanism.

Under-resourced secrearias lead o poor reviews. Poor reviews lead o a loss o

confidence in he mechanism and a loss o engagemen a a senior poliical level.

• Civil-society engagement requires adequate resourcing and care. Genuine

civil-sociey engagemen adds value. Fig-lea engagemen will be exposed or wha i is.

|

ABLE 1

ccountability mechanisms at global and regional levels

Key mechanisms, strengths, weaknesses, and lessons

Mechanisms Strengths Weaknesses Lessons

Global mechanisms

AMRs

• High-level political engagement

• Positive reputational benefits

• Participatory imbalance between

developed and developing countries

• Lack of incentives

• Lack of learning opportunities

• Lack of civil society engagement

Clear review of objectives and incentives

for participation are crucial.

DCF

• Donor focused

• Universal among U.N. member states

• Legitimate

• Lack of incentives

• Lack of civil society engagement

• Lack of political buy-in

• Lack of learning opportunities

Mechanisms must be inclusive and

promote genuine participation.

IMF Article IV

consultations

• Technical competence

• Good data collection

• Lack of independence

• Penalties for noncompliance

High-quality analysis should be linked

to incentives.

Regional mechanisms

OECD-country peer

reviews

• Data collection and technical

competence

• Lack of political buy-in

• Lack of inclusiveness outside the

OECD-DAC

Quantitative rankings encourage

behavioral change.

Political buy-in is key.

APRM

• Positive incentives

• Regional mechanisms that reinforce

national mechanisms

• Inclusivity

• Funding and capacity shortfalls

• Lack of buy-in

• Bureaucratic overburdening

Adequate resourcing and strong direction

enhance credibility.

ources: Authors’analysis of accountability mechanisms using reports, reviews, and studies by the U.N. Offi ce of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the Center for Economic and Social Rights;he U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs; the German Development Institute; the IMF; the OECD; Politikon;Journal ofSustainable Development; DARA; Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink,

ctivists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in I nternational Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998); the APRM; the Nordic Africa Institute; Partnership Africa Canada; and Human Rights

uarterly.


16/31


Influencing SDG implementation

through accountability mechanisms

Accounabiliy is no an end in isel. Te SDGs and he MDGs beore hem are

par o a volunary inernaional ramework raher han a reay or convenion

wih legal and regulaory power. Te role o accounabiliy mechanisms is o influ-

ence he achievemen o he goals. Tere are wo cenral ways in which accoun-

abiliy mechanisms can reinorce achievemen o global goals. Te pahways are

neiher muually exclusive nor equally relevan across all counries and conexs.

Inspiration: collective action, champions, and the power of reputation

As volunary commimens, he SDGs speak o a higher sandard o ambiion han

a legally binding documen would be able o secure. In doing so, he goals can ac

as norms ha provide a rallying cry or ordinary ciizens, advocaes, and govern-

mens. Such a rallying cry was already eviden, in par, wih he MDGs, which

galvanized high-level atenion and a global campaign effor.40

Campaigning and mobilizaion mater, as was seen a he 2005 Gleneagles sum-

mi. Tere, he G8 endorsed he MDGs’ underlying conceps, including is head-

line goal and an agreemen on deb relie, which represens one o he greaes

successes o he eighh MDG: “Develop a Global Parnership or Developmen.”41

Tis ollowed a global campaign, “Make Povery Hisory,” which combined

domesic pressure on G8 counries along wih inernaional atenion and engage-

men, including specific pressure on he Unied Kingdom, which held he G8

presidency in 2005.42 Tis high-level atenion spurred commimens rom wha

was hen he world’s pre-eminen economic orum. Domesic publics played a

roleor example, civil sociey in he Unied Kingdom organized massive mobili-

zaions ahead o Gleneagles.

Tis experience; he desire o member saes o proclaim heir successes in he

AMR and he DCF despie heir limied uiliy; and he abiliy o peer reviews

and quaniaive scoring o creae an incenive or change all illusrae he power

o repuaion. Saes, like people, are proud and enjoy posiive effecs on heir


17/31


repuaion. Smar accounabiliy mechanisms or a volunary regime mus ake

advanage o his in order o creae as many posiive effecs as possible. Te idea

o “muual accounabiliy” is a useul way o hinking abou his as a means o o

move away rom a puniive noion o sancions linked o he policing o acions

and oward co-responsibiliy or implemening a common agenda.43

Tereore, or he SDGs, a criical pahway or accounabiliy mechanisms o

mater may be hrough he idenificaion o champions: counries and ciies ha

can demonsrae significan progress or achievemen oward individual goals

and arges. Tis is refleced in our analysis o exising mechanisms, which poin

o he cenraliy o high-level poliical engagemen in meaningul accounabiliy

mechanisms. Te breadh o he SDGs will provide many opporuniies or differ-

en counries o proclaim heir successes hrough reporing mechanisms and he

poenial repuaional benefis will provide an incenive. Ideally, success sories

will provide inspiraion o ohers.

Learning: deepening understanding, driving adaptation, and delivering

policy reforms

Te challenge o implemenaion also poins o he need or learning lessons on

wha works, wha does no, and how risks o implemenaion migh manies

hemselves. A sraegic opporuniy or accounabiliy mechanisms o conribue

o implemenaion is hrough using hem o esablish space or learning. Clearly,

learning rom champions is relevanas champions can share lessons on wha

has worked. Conversely, anoher learning opporuniyone ha requires careul

houghis finding space or sories o ailure.

Te qualiy o sandards and indicaors around he SDGs will also influence he

poenial or learning. When echnical sandards are robus and indicaors are

measurable, hey become he reerence poin or dialogue around an issueno

jus wih poliicians and campaigners bu also wih he implemeners and civil

servans whose engagemen is necessary or success. When here is a common

dialogue, i is much easier o undersand wha works, as well as wha does no.

Finally, effecive learning is also a uncion o robus eedback loops. Mexico,

a high perormer in erms o MDG progress, credis is Specialized echnical

Commitee o he MDGs as “essenial o he evaluaion process and coordina-

ion wihin minisries responsible or achievemens o he MDGs.”44 Te ocus on


18/31


saisics helped o clariy responsibiliies a differen levels o governmen, as well

as “help civil sociey o beter engage… reinorc[ing] he viruous circle o public

acion, ransparency, assessmen and accounabiliy.”45

Indicaors and sandards also creae an incenive or implemenaion. Tey can

empower senior officials, or example, o drive perormanceas seen in he caseo Mexicoand hey can also be useul due o public obligaions o disseminae

inormaion.46 Many counries, or example, work wih he U.N. Developmen

Programme, or UNDP, o compile annual MDG achievemen repors, which have

ocused domesic and inernaional atenion on arges.47

Civil servans’ desire o improve perormance on indicaors or heir respecive

counry’s sanding can drive changes in policies and procedures. Peer review pro-

cesses in paricular, as explored above, illusrae how accounabiliy mechanisms

can creae a space o encourage policy adapaions across member saes.48


19/31


Findings

Te principle ha should underpin decisions on an accounabiliy archiecure

or he SDGs is ha he local should shape he inernaional. Saes and ciies

will build relaionships wih heir ciizens around he SDGs. Te inernaional

accounabiliy archiecure mus remain subsidiary o he local. Te implicaion is

ha early effors o shape he accounabiliy archiecure mus be adapable. Te

naure and diversiy o local srucures will emerge over ime, and he inerna-

ional sysem mus respond o and engage consrucively wih hese srucures.

Tis does no mean ha here is no role or he inernaional archiecure. As

noed earlier, a key mechanism o influence or accounabiliy mechanisms is o

inspire. Nowihsanding he need o be adapable, he more ha early effors on

accounabiliy can inspire local acors o engage, he more likely he SDGs are o

have upake. Tis will be difficul. Decisions on he HLPF, or example, will have

o incorporae an undersanding o he credibiliy limis o a New York-based

annual inergovernmenal process run rom U.N. headquarers, as well as o he

need o be realisic: Te mechanism ha emerges mus be cos-effecive wih

respec o is objecives.

Te lessons learned are generally applicable. Tey sugges ha in order o be effecive in

supporing he implemenaion o he 2030 agenda, accounabiliy mechanisms mus:

• Clearly specify objectives. Wihou an undersanding o he paricular role o

each mechanism and is links o oher levels, mechanisms will rapidly become

pro orma.

• Recognize that form must follow function. For all levels o accounabiliy

mechanisms, i is essenial ha objecives are achievable a ha level o orum. A high-level inergovernmenal process may no be he place, or example, or

ciies o criicize policies o heir saes.


20/31


• Incorporate incentives. Relaed o his is he need or a cos-benefi analysis.

oo many inernaional mechanisms exis where he ransacion cos o engage-

men exceeds he poenial benefis, and he resuls are clear.

• Strike a balance between substance and process. Te experiences above high-

ligh he impor o real, nonsaniized engagemen. Processes have inrinsic valuein he inernaional sysem i hey are ed wih subsance. Te use o evidence

and, in paricular, building mechanisms ha encourage he use o evidence in

policymaking and decision-making will help mechanisms o have an effec.

• Involve a range of stakeholders. Genuine civil-sociey engagemen adds value. Te

inclusive process ha gave rise o he SDGs should be mirrored by equally inclu-

sive accounabiliy mechanisms. Moreover, a variey o accounabiliy mecha-

nisms reduces he risk ha so-called official mechanisms become he “only game

in own,” ignoring he need o innovae and adap o new developmens.49

• Create learning and identify champions. Paricularly in he iniial phases o

he 2030 agenda, finding building blocks or uure efforshrough under-

sanding wha programs and policies have worked and whywill be more

producive han accounabiliy hrough reporing. Te evidence rom pas

mechanisms suggess ha he role o champions and success sories may be he

mos effecive pahway o do so. Ideally, pahways ha also allow saes and ci-

ies o ideniy ailure will be ound, as learning wha does no work is equally as

imporan as learning wha does.

Linked o hese lessons is he sense ha here are subsanial risks posed by bad

mechanism design. A process ha is devoid o subsance, is oo prescripive, or

has no undersanding o is own purpose can easily help o ensure sraegic ail-

ure o he 2030 agenda. In addiion, he scope o he 2030 agenda will require

an accounabiliy archiecure ha can adap o mee is demands. In he early

years, accounabiliy oucomes wil l ocus on bui lding-block quesions: Wha

measures work and do no work? Wha are he righ enry poins or engage-

men wih an issue? W ha are key risks? In laer years, member saes will need

o ocus on scaling up successes rom he early years o implemenaion and

consolidaing gains. Differen oucomes may require differen processes, and hearchiecure should be able o adap.


21/31


The HLPF

One criical ace o he global archiecure or accounabiliy has already

been deined: he High-Level Poliical Forum. he HLPF is inended o

serve our purposes:

1. Provide guidance and leadership on susainable developmen issues

2. Provide ollow-up and review o he implemenaion o developmen policies

3. Oversee and enhance he inegraion o economic, environmenal, and social

aspecs o developmen policies and programs

4. Address emerging issues in susainable developmen50

Te HLPF will convene once a year under he auspices o ECOSOC o discuss

hemaic issues; receive inpu rom NGOs and civil sociey; coordinae develop-

men policies among counries; and share learning experiences. Once every our

years, he HLPF will use he opporuniy o he U.N. General Assembly o convene heads o sae and governmen or a period o eigh days in order o promoe

developmen and discuss new challenges o developmen. Tese meeings will

produce policy declaraions as high-level guidance.

On paper, he HLPF promises o be innovaive in ha i will allow unprecedened

access or NGOs and civil-sociey acors, which have received incremenally

increasing privileges in U.N. deliberaions since 1992. However, many obsacles

remain or genuine paricipaion o NGOs and civil-sociey acors in HLPF mee-

ings, and i is sill unclear as o wha degree hey will be graned access and wha

exen hey may be able o provide meaningul inpu.

Many poliical challenges remain or how he HLPF will be conduced. Counries

ha have devoed significan resources o ECOSOC are hesian o open up o all

member saes, as he HLPF calls or, and quesions remain abou wheher HLPF

rules will ollow or supersede ECOSOC rules. Tis will have implicaions or he

paricipaion o member saes and exernal sakeholders.

Te HLPF will be one imporan componen o an accounabiliy ecosysem or

he SDGs bu should no be seen as he sole ollow-up and review mechanism. I will need o work in andem wih naional and regional review processes and be

par o a coheren poliical engagemen sraegy led by he Unied Naions in order

be successul. However, given ha he HLPF is currenly he only clearly defined

porion o he accounabiliy mechanism, a number o he recommendaions in

his repor ocus on his body.


22/31


Recommendations

Based on hese lessons, member saes should:

Set transitional objectives for HLPF 2016

Te 2016 HLPF alls oo early o repor on significan progress. I hereore plays a

ransiional roleas boh he firs HLPF o be held and he firs move away rom

he old accounabiliy archiecure. Given he above lessons, useul criical objec-ives or 2016 migh include:

• Identifying objectives for future HLPFs. Raher han reporing on curren

achievemens, HLPF 2016 will be more useul i i can speciy wha is

expeced over he nex five years rom boh global and regional srucures. In

doing so, i should also:

– Drive invesmen in building robus mechanisms. Te iering rom local o

regional o global will require resources, atenion, and invesmen. 2016 is a

good opporuniy or member saes o commi o ensuring ha such mecha-

nisms and heir linkages are adequaely resourced. – Build flexibiliy. In speciying objecives, raher han mechanisms and pro-

cesses, he HLPF can se isel up o be adapable. Finding he righ way o

achieve he objecives raher han adhering o process migh enable some

degree o flexibiliy in a sysem ha graviaes oward rigidiy. – Ariculae he sraegic expecaions o he Unied Naions. Troughou

2016, rom he hemaic debaes o he presiden o he General Assembly

o he Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review, member saes will have

o speciy wha role hey wan he U.N. sysem o play in achieving he 2030agenda. Te 2016 HLPF will provide a urher opporuniy o ensure consis-

en and sraegic ariculaion.


23/31


Focus HLPFs 2017–2020 on providing the building blocks for success

2017 and subsequen years will need o see a robus HLPF ha can play a useul

and sraegic role in conribuing o he 2030 agenda. Humiliy wil l be key

despie being a poenially influenial global process, he HLPF wil l also remain

an inergovernmenal discussion a he Unied Naions, wih he limiaionssuch a process beges. Te 2019 HLPF, as he firs head-o-sae-level mee-

ing, will require special atenion. Tereore, sraegic objecives or he years

2017–2020 could include:

• Identifying champions. Posiive reinorcemen is one o he ways in which a global

accounabiliy mechanism can have a posiive effec. Finding and ideniying cham-

pionsboh counries and ciiesha have been able o ackle specific challenges

wihin he 2030 agenda will help o build confidence in he agenda isel.

• Emphasizing learning. Te HLPF canno and should no be he primaryorum or exchanging lessons. Such conversaions will be beter anchored a

he regional level and beween regions, where here is more space or open

exchanges. Bu linked o he idea o ideniying champions will be o emphasize

and share lessons o success.

• Maintaining political attention. Adoping he 2030 agenda was a poliically

challenging process. HLPFs can help o ensure ha he level o member sae

commimen o he enire agenda remains consisen by providing poliical

oxygen in he orm o high-level engagemen. Ensuring ha he 2019 HLPF can

deliver enough subsance hrough he sraegic use o heads o sae o capure

public atenion is criical.

In order o implemen hese sraegic objecives, HLPFs will need o ollow

hree key principles:

1. Have a clear link to incentives. As member saes design HLPFs rom 2017–

2020, hey will need o ensure ha here are concree incenives in place or

member saes o engage. Tis means using he ools availableincluding

money and recogniionand linking hem o he HLPF in explici ways.

2. Use real evidence. Nonsubsanive discussions simply will no work. Te

HLPFs will need o ensure ha hey are able o alk abou real success as

opposed o glowing sel-reporing. Ensuring ha here are credible incenives

will be criical, as will ensuring exernal paricipaion.


24/31


25/31


• Establish a prize mechanism for policy innovations. Te X Prize and similar

iniiaives are examples o how innovaion and success can emerge rom

unexpeced quarers. Member saes should speciy a series o clear objecives

and find a way o offer subsanial prizes or new and creaive ideas. Building

an annual prize mechanism ino he HLPF will ensure ha i can atrac press

atenion. Moreover, propagaing such mechanisms o regions may ensure adeeper level o innovaion.

• Create an independent commission on lessons to be learned. Finding a sae space

or member saes o repor on difficul challenges is as essenial as sharing suc-

cesses. One challengingbu useulopion migh be o creae an independen

commission on ailure ha could anonymously collae examples rom member

saes, highlighing challenges and difficulies. Tese lessons could be synhesized

ino policy recommendaions and could be issued as par o he HLPF. Civil soci-

ey could play a criical role in his regard. I member saes were o hold an open

hearing o such a repor“Key Policy Risks or Agenda 2030: Pialls and raps,”perhapsi would help make he HLPF a credible orum.

• Involve young innovators and leaders. Te 2030 agenda seeks o benefi a

generaion ha does no hold he levers o power. Finding a subsanial way o

include young people in global and regional ora is essenial. A series o young

innovaors grans and showcaseswhich would provide people under he

age o 30 a chance o bring orward ideas and receive unding and suppor o

bring hese o scalecould also help o keep he HLPF relevan. Tis would

be an easy way o build engagemen wih social venure-capial acors and he

privae secor more broadly.


26/31


Conclusion

Te SDGs represen a new and ambiious agenda or global developmen. Having

well-designed accounabiliy mechanisms is key o ensuring ha counries effec-

ively implemen and rack heir progress on he 2030 agenda. Bu building a well-

designed accounabiliy sysem ha has concree objecives; incorporaes real and

subsanive discussions; is linked o incenives; is adapable; devolved; and ha

reains poliical atenion is a hard ask wih more han is share o challenges.

SDG accounabiliy mechanisms can grealy benefi rom he experience o previ-ous iniiaives. Moreover, a dose o humiliy is required in order o ensure ha

mechanisms designed oday are fi or purpose over he liespan o he SDGs. Te

earlier ha he inernaional communiy acs, in paricular by developing srong

and credible accounabiliy mechanisms, he more likely i is ha he 2030 agenda

will succeed in is aim o ensure ha no one is lef behind.


27/31


About the authors

Molly Elgin-Cossart is a Senior Fellow a he Cener or American Progress, where

she works on issues involving oreign policy, inernaional developmen, and global

conflic. Previously, she was a senior ellow on global developmen a New York

Universiy’s Cener on Inernaional Cooperaion. She was chie o saff o he U.N.

Secreary-General’s High-Level Panel on he Pos-2015 Developmen Agenda.

Rahul Chandran is a Senior Policy Adviser wih he Unied Naions Universiy’s

Cenre or Policy Research, where he works on peacekeeping, developmen, andhumaniarian affairs. He has previously led eams a he Unied Naions working

on U.N. reorm and humaniarian policy, as well as working on developmen policy

and reorm. He was previously he depuy direcor a New York Universiy’s Cener

on Inernaional Cooperaion.


28/31


Acknowledgements

Tis repor includes subsanial conribuions rom Jessica Espey, Associae

Direcor o he Susainable Developmen Soluions Nework, and David Seven,

Senior Fellow and Associae Direcor a New York Universiy’s Cener on

Inernaional Cooperaion. Tis repor also benefied rom research assisance

rom Hannah Cooper, Alexandra Ivanovic, and Lee Schrader a Unied Naions

Universiy’s Cenre on Policy Research, as well as rom Annie Malknech a he

Cener or American Progress.


29/31


Endnotes

1 U.N. General Assembly “Transforming our world: the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (2015),available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.

2 This paper intentionally avoids an examination ofnational-level accountability mechanisms giventhe fact that these will vary considerably accordingto context. For a consideration of best practice fornational-level review mechanisms, see Jessica Espey,Karolina Walecik, and Martina Kuhner “Follow-up andReview of the SDGs: fulfilling our commitments” (Paris,France: Sustainable Development Solutions Network,2015), available at http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-

Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdf .

3 See Ruth W. Grant and Robert O. Keohane “Account-ability and Abuses of Power in World Politics,” AmericanPolitical Science Review 99 (1) (2005); Staffan I. Lindberg,“Accountability: the core concept and its subtypes”(London, United Kingdom: Africa Power and Politics,2009) ; E.L. Normanton, The Accountability and Audit ofGovernments: A Comparative Study (Manchester, UnitedKingdom: Manchester University Press, 1966); Allan D.Barton, “Public Sector Accountability and Commercial-in-Confidence Outsourcing Contracts,” Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal 19 (2) (2006). Aworking definition might be, “Accountability… impliesthat some actors have the right to hold other actors toa set of standards, to judge whether they have fulfilledtheir responsibilities in light of those standards, and toimpose sanctions if they determine that those respon-sibilities have not been met.” See Grant and Keohane

“Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics.”

4 U.N. General Assembly, “Transforming our world: the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (2015).

5 See, José Antonio Ocampo, “A Post-2015 Monitoringand Accountability Framework” (New York, NY: Depart-ment of Economic & Social Affairs, 2015). In particular,regarding the limitations of accountability at theinternational level, “… inter-governmental organiza-tions lack the equivalent to the national modalitiesof both vertical and h orizontal accountability for theinternational agreements that have been signed byMember States. The ultimate mechanism of national ac-countability, enforcement, is almost generally absent atthe international level. Additionally, most internationalcommitments by Member States are voluntary andthus non-binding. Finally, also in contrast to nationalgovernance, the responsibilities of different actors are

not always clear at the international level.”

6 Beth A. Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights: Inter-national Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge, UnitedKingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

7 See the contents of Table 1 for a comparison of thesestrengths and weaknesses.

8 See the website of the AMR, U.N. Economic and SocialCouncil, “Annual Ministerial Review,” available at http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/amr/ (last accessed November2015).

9 U.N. General Assembly “2005 World Summit Outcome”(2005).

10 U.N. OHCHR and the Centre for Economic and SocialRights, “Who will be accountable? – Human Rig hts andthe Post-2015 Development Agenda” (2013).

11 Jan-Gustav Strandenaes “Participatory democracy - HLPFlaying the basis for sustainable development gover-nance in the 21st Century: Modalities for major groups,

Non-Governmental Organisations and other stakehold-ers engagement with the high level political forum onsustainable development” (New York, NY: UNDESA andDSD, 2014), available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdf .

12 The guidelines for the 2014 AMR now call upon theparticipating states to also discuss challenges andobstacles. See, U.N. DESA, “Guidance Note for the 2014National Voluntary Presentations” (2013), available athttp://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/newfunct/pdf13/guide-lines_for_2014_nvps.pdf.

13 See DCF website, U.N. Economic and Social Council,“Development Cooperation Forum,” available at http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/dcf/ (last accessed November2015).

14 Heiner Janus, Stephan Klingebiel, and Timo Mahn,“How to Shape Development Cooperation? The GlobalPartnership and the Development Cooperation Forum”(Bonn, Germany: German Development Institute, 2014).

15 Strandenaes, “Participatory democracy.”

16 U.N. Economic and Social Council, “Development Coop-eration Forum,” available at https://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/development-cooperation-forum(last accessedMarch 2016).

17 Ibid.

18 International Monetary Fund, “IMF Surveillance,” avail-able at http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/surv.htm (last accessed December 2015).

19 International Monetary Fund, “Annual Report 2001”(Washington: International Monetary Fund, 2001).

20 Stephany Griffiths-Jones and Jenny Kimmis, ‘TheReform of Global Financial Governance Arrangements”(Brighton, U.K.: Institute of Development Studies at theUniversity of Sussex, 2001), available at https://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/finance/pdfs/GovernanceFirstDraft.pdf; Rakesh Moahn and Muneesh Kapur, “Emerging Powers

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldhttp://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdfhttp://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdfhttp://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/development-cooperation-forumhttps://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/development-cooperation-forumhttps://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/finance/pdfs/GovernanceFirstDraft.pdfhttps://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/finance/pdfs/GovernanceFirstDraft.pdfhttps://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/finance/pdfs/GovernanceFirstDraft.pdfhttps://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/finance/pdfs/GovernanceFirstDraft.pdfhttps://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/development-cooperation-forumhttps://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/development-cooperation-forumhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3682The%20High%20Level%20Political%20Forum,%20major%20groups%20and%20modalities.pdfhttp://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdfhttp://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdfhttp://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/151130-SDSN-Follow-up-and-Review-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdfhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld


30/31


and Global Governance: Whither the IMF?” (Washington:International Monetary Fund, 2015), available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15219.pdf .

21 See the peer review page on the OECD website, OECD,“The OECD’s peer review process.” available at http://www.oecd.org/site/peerreview/ (last accessed Novem-ber 2015).

22 Ibid.

23 For an in-depth analysis of the OECD’s peer review work-

ing methods, see Fabrizio Pagani, “Peer Review as a Toolfor Cooperation and Change – An Analysis of the OECDWorking Method” (Paris, France: OECD, 2002).

24 Ravi Kanbur, “The African Peer Review Mechanism(APRM): An Assessment of Concept and Design,”Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies 31 (2)(2004).

25 For an examination of the use of sustainable develop-ment indicators in the OECD economic survey and envi-ronmental performance reviews, see Markku Lehtonen,“Mainstreaming Sustainable Development in the OECDthrough Indicators and Peer Reviews,” Sustainable Devel-opment 16 (2008).

26 OECD, “Peer Review: An OECD Tool for Co-operation andChange” (2003).

27 See OECD, “Managing Aid: Practices of DAC MemberCountries” (2009); DARA, The Humanitarian ResponseIndex 2008: Donor Accountability in Humanitarian Ac-tion (Hampshire, United Kingdom: Palgrave MacMillan,2008).

28 Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink , Activists BeyondBorders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999).

29 NEPAD, “African Peer Review Mechanism,” available athttp://www.nepad.org/economicandcorporategov-ernance/african-peer-review-mechanism/about (lastaccessed March 2016).

30 Kanbur, “The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).”

31 Open Society Foundations, “The African Peer ReviewMechanism: A compilation of studies of the process in

nine African countries” (2010), available at https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/aprm-english-20100720.pdf.

32 APRM, “Memorandum of Understanding on the AfricanPeer Review Mechanism” (2003).

33 Ibid.

34 Zein Kebonang and Charles Manga Fombad, “The Afri-can Peer Review Mechanism: Challenges and Prospects.”In Henning Melber ed., AU, NEPAD and the APRM: De-mocratisation Efforts Explored (Uppsala, Sweden: NordicAfrica Institute, 2006). See also, Adotey Bing-Pappoe,“Reviewing Africa’s Peer Review Mechanism: A SevenCountry Survey” (Ottawa, Canada: Partnership AfricaCanada, 2010).

35 Ibid.

36 Magnus Killander, “The African Peer Review Mechanismand Human Rights: The First Reviews and the WayForward,” Human Rights Quarterly 30 (2008).

37 Kebonang and Fombad, “The African Peer ReviewMechanism.”

38 Official Website of the President, “Statement byPresident Uhuru Kenyatta During African Peer ReviewForum in Johannesburg, South Africa, 13 June 2015,”

available at http://ww w.president.go.ke/2015/06/13/statement-by-president-uhuru-kenyatta-during-african-peer-review-forum-in-johannesburg-south-africa-13th-

june-2015/ (last accessed November 2015).

39 Kanbur, “The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).”

40 Claire Melamed and Lucy Scott, “After 2015: Progress andchallenges for development” (London, U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute, 2011), available at http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7061.pdf.

41 United Nations, “Millennium Development Goals and Be-yond,” available at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml (last accessed March 2016).

42 Perthshire G8 Summit, “Home,” available at http://www.perthshireg8.com/ (last accessed March 2016).

43 See Espey, Walecik, and Kuhner “Follow-up and Reviewof the SDGs.”

44 Gabriel Rivera Conde y Castaneda, head of strategicprojects Unit of the Executive Office of the President,telephone interview with author, July 2015.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 See, U.N. Development Programme, “MDG progressreports,” available at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/mdg-reports.html (lastaccessed November 2015).

48 Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights.

49 Kanburm “The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).”

50 See High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Develop-ment, “Home,” available at https://sustainabledevel-opment.un.org/hlpf (last accessed November 2015);Strandenaes, “Participatory democracy”; U.N. GeneralAssembly, “Format and organizational aspects of thehigh-level political forum on sustainable development”(2013).

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15219.pdfhttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15219.pdfhttp://www.nepad.org/economicandcorporategovernance/african-peer-review-mechanism/abouthttp://www.nepad.org/economicandcorporategovernance/african-peer-review-mechanism/abouthttp://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtmlhttp://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtmlhttp://www.perthshireg8.com/http://www.perthshireg8.com/http://www.perthshireg8.com/http://www.perthshireg8.com/http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtmlhttp://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtmlhttp://www.nepad.org/economicandcorporategovernance/african-peer-review-mechanism/abouthttp://www.nepad.org/economicandcorporategovernance/african-peer-review-mechanism/abouthttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15219.pdfhttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15219.pdf


31/31

Our Mission

The Center for American

Progress is an independent,

nonpartisan policy institute

that is dedicated to improving

the lives of all Americans,

through bold, progressive

ideas, as well as strongleadership and concerted

action. Our aim is not just to

change the conversation, but

to change the country.

Our Values

As progressives, we believe

America should be a land of

boundless opportunity, where

people can climb the ladder

of economic mobility. We

believe we owe it to future

generations to protect theplanet and promote peace

and shared global prosperity.

And we believe an effective

government can earn the

trust of the American people,

champion the common

good over narrow self-interest,

and harness the strength ofour diversity.

Our Approach

We develop new policy ideas

challenge the media to cover

the issues that truly matter,

and shape the national debat

With policy teams in major

issue areas, American Progres

can think creatively at thecross-section of traditional

boundaries to develop ideas

for policymakers that lead to

real change. By employing an

extensive communications

and outreach effort that we

adapt to a rapidly changing

media landscape, we move

our ideas aggressively in thenational policy debate.

Documents

Designing Better Accountability Mechanisms for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development